On 22/03/2011, at 1:09 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
> You seem to have somewhat independently argued that #4 means that Tor
> cannot be trusted against (any) large government(s). This,
> unfortunately, may be true for some governments. Extremely well funded
> adversaries that are able to observe large p
I use on several systems here. The firewall has "noticed"
several instances where all these systems are initiating
traffic with external sites(1). These occur during odd
hours when there is nobody using these systems, thus there
is some suspicion. The firewall has since blocked this suspect
e...@riskproof.no-ip.org wrote:
I use on several systems here. The firewall has "noticed"
several instances where all these systems are initiating
traffic with external sites(1). These occur during odd
hours when there is nobody using these systems, thus there
is some suspicion. The firewa
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:09:43PM -0700, Mike Perry wrote:
> Thus spake Joe Btfsplk (joebtfs...@gmx.com):
>
> > On 3/21/2011 2:39 PM, Paul Syverson wrote:
> > >On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:06:04PM -0500, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> > >Last comments for a while. (All I have time for, sorry.) I'm just
> >
On 3/22/2011 12:09 AM, Mike Perry wrote:
To distill your argument down, you've said so far:
1. Tor was/is funded by a government.
2. Governments only act out of self-interest.
3. Governments often have ulterior movies.
4. Governments have inconceivable power.
Please, please - everyone (probabl
On 3/21/2011 6:38 PM, Al MailingList wrote:
That's a very good point klaus.
Joe - if you think the US Government is one big cohesive entity that
funds projects consistently from a single pool of resources and money
then I would politely suggest you may not have had much to do with
them :P
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> Why would any govt create something their enemies can easily use against
> them, then continue funding it once they know it helps the enemy, if a govt
> has absolutely no control over it? It's that simple. It would seem a very
> bad idea. S
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
> Why would any govt create something their enemies can easily use against
> them, then continue funding it once they know it helps the enemy, if a govt
> has absolutely no control over it? It's that simple. It would seem a very
> bad idea. S
Hi Joe,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
>
> Please, please - everyone (probably including me) is making the topic way
> more complicated than my main question. No one's addressed the main
> question. If there's no answer, that's fine. Forget conspiracy theories.
> If you
> From tor-talk-boun...@lists.torproject.org Tue Mar 22 04:16:23 2011
(snippage...)
>
> I don't know if this is what you are talking about or not, but a while
> back I noticed port 22 (the traditional SSH port) traffic I wasn't
> expecting on one of my machines. Checking tor's cached-descrip
Too many users dislikes of annoying web elements -- banners, popups, scripts,
strange frames. They use a tools to blocks that elements or change webpage
rendering.
Traditional programs for filtering is a local proxys -- privoxy or polipo are
examples with
close relation to Tor and used actively
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 03:48:59 -0600
e...@riskproof.no-ip.org wrote:
> I use on several systems here. The firewall has "noticed"
> several instances where all these systems are initiating
> traffic with external sites(1). These occur during odd
> hours when there is nobody using these systems,
On 3/22/2011 11:38 AM, Kasimir Gabert wrote:
Of course, if Tor was only funded from one
subtree, say the imaginary "US Monitoring Internet Communications
Agency" then you might have some reason to be concerned.
Take care,
Kasimir
No idea why funding from one source is an issue. Not a requir
> Jim, I am unclear as to what you are saying.. you noticed
> port 22 traffic you weren't expecting on one of your machines..
> Do you recall if that traffic was INITIATED from your machine or
> were you seeing UNSOLICITED incoming SYNs for port 22?
>
Your machine, running a Tor client, initi
On 03/22/2011 12:08 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Joe Btfsplk wrote:
Why would any govt create something their enemies can easily use against
them, then continue funding it once they know it helps the enemy, if a govt
has absolutely no control over it? It's that simp
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:13:33 -0400
> From: Andrew Lewman
>
> How are you detecting ssh activity? actual protocol analysis or tcp
> port 22? There are valid relays on tcp port 22 which your tor client
> may connect to in the normal operation of tor.
>
having capturing ALL packets comin
> From: Benedikt Westermann
>
> Your machine, running a Tor client, initiates a connection to a machine
> on port 22. This is your situation as I understood it.
>
> All of the mentioned IPs are IPs of Tor nodes and all of them announcing
> port 22 as a listen port, e.g., Amunet9, a Tor router
On 3/22/2011 3:57 PM, Michael Reed wrote:
BINGO, we have a winner! The original *QUESTION* posed that led to
the invention of Onion Routing was, "Can we build a system that allows
for bi-directional communications over the Internet where the source
and destination cannot be determined by a m
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:09:38 -0700
Mike Perry wrote:
> Thus spake Robert Ransom (rransom.8...@gmail.com):
>
> > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:58:06 -0700
> > Mike Perry wrote:
> >
> > > However, I'm not sure that this is going to work for Tor Browser
> > > Bundle users (which ships with HTTPS Everywh
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 05:13:39 -0500 (CDT)
Scott Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 10:17:30 -0800 Robert Ransom
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:21:22 +0100
> >anonym wrote:
> >
> >> While I've been developing the LiveCDs Incognito and Tails I've got my
> >> fair share of feature request
e...@riskproof.no-ip.org wrote:
From tor-talk-boun...@lists.torproject.org Tue Mar 22 04:16:23 2011
(snippage...)
I don't know if this is what you are talking about or not, but a while
back I noticed port 22 (the traditional SSH port) traffic I wasn't
expecting on one of my machines. Check
Thus spake Robert Ransom (rransom.8...@gmail.com):
> > > This ???phone-home??? behaviour is not safe for users who browse the web
> > > over Tor until proposal 171 is implemented in Tor. At best, it would
> > > *only* fragment the anonymity set of Tor users.
> >
> > The problem with 171 (SOCKS u
22 matches
Mail list logo
